GatewayRedbirds.com

Joe Posnanski had a list of the 32 best Wide Recievers evar in the NFL that has Torry Holt listed as the 10th best WR of all time and Isaac Bruce 22nd.

I've always thought of Bruce as one of the 10 best WR of all time and Holt a little bit behind him. I wonder if it's just my personal bias, since Bruce was one of the first star players on the St. Louis Rams and stayed with the team for the bulk of his career.

When you break down the two recievers during the peak offensive years for the Rams (1999-2004) Holt has a slight advantage:

Bruce vs Holt
75 AVG YPG 85
7,100 Total Yards 8,156
48 TDs 45
12 FUMBLES 13
72 AV 81

It just seemed to me that Bruce, especially in the early years 99-01, was more targeted by Defenses than Holt, made better passes, achieved more yards after the catch, and tended to be the reciever that Warner/Bulger looked for when they had to make a good pass.

Who would you choose as the better reciever? Holt or Bruce?

My biased opinion is Bruce all the way. Watching Reverend Ike (I realize he dislikes this moniker) on Sunday was my going to church for several years. I've scarcely had religion since.

My unbiased opinion is Bruce all the way too.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... ucIs00.htm

Ignoring the hamstrung plaqued half of 97 and 98 he was perhaps the most dominant WR in the game during from 1995 -2000. Check out 1995 total yards receiving 1781, 13 TDs averaged 111 ypg. And this was on teams with very little else for opposing D's to focus on.

Lots of non-statistical factors, such as his acceptance of a smaller role in greater offense when Faulk Holt etc came onto the scene. And you got to love Bruce's devastating blocking.

Length of career should be a factor too in the comparison.
Holts #s
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... ltTo00.htm

Completely unfounded, strictly from my memory of watching games, I was in my infancy of football fandom at their peak. But it reminds me a little of Faulk v Jackson or maybe like Carter v Moss.

I'd say Bruce (and to finish the comparison, Faulk and Carter) were the 'smarter' players. They did more with less and saw the field better etc. and Holt (Jackson and Moss) were/are physical freaks who were damn near impossible stop and never had to be 'smart' because of their pure talent.

Bruce.
Holt, in his early years, had the benefit of being the secondary receiver to Bruce, when Isaac was still the man that the D focused on.

How is Fault vs. Jackson even a debate? Only a total retard would even think that Jackson has a vague right to carry Faulk's jock..

JoeMcKim wrote:How is Fault vs. Jackson even a debate? Only a total retard would even think that Jackson has a vague right to carry Faulk's jock..

I just meant I thought one was more physically gifted and the other is a 'smarter' player. Based purely on physical ability, I think Jackson is at least as good as Faulk - but Faulk was a much smarter running back and football player. No reason to hurl insults.

Patriots put Holt on IR. His career may be over..

I really like both of them.....I'll go with Holt.